Posted: 19 Oct 2011 06:39 AM PDT

Yesterday something happened that hasn't happened since 2001. Apple missed its quarterly earnings numbers.

It's an interesting phenomenon because it had nothing to do with the death of Steve Jobs. The company just didn't sell as many iPhones and iPads as it thought it would. What is also interesting is Apples' long history of given ridiculously low guidance to stock analysts then turning around and crushing their numbers. Not sure what happened here though. Did Apple finally try to give accurate guidance to the Street then missed it or did they have a REALLY bad quarter in missing their already likely to be too low earnings estimates? Or did they get "done-in" by an over active and often inaccurate rumor mill?

Whatever the reasons or circumstance some are probably concerned about what lies ahead for the industry. After all, if Apple is having trouble then the rest of the world must be in the crapper. Well that's the easy answer for sure but it's likely not a real problem.

What? How can that be? They missed for the first time in forever etc etc. well, the most likely reason is that they are simply a victim of their own success. There is so much buzz and rumor activity around everything that the company does that it actually creates some indecision and waiting in the fan boy set. As a result they may not buy something because the buzz is that in a few short months the next "big thing" is anticipated.

Of course, that can have its drawbacks as well as we saw with the iPhone 5 no-show and the ensuing "disappointment" from many. Most Apple fanatics are probably going to wait for the iPhone 5 to appear next now that the rumor mil has churned out that Steve Jobs' last great act for the company was making sure that his fingerprints were all over the iPhone 5.

What is most interesting though about the earnings hiccup of yesterday is how Apple has set the table with expectations of this current quarter being in the neighborhood of $40 billion in revenue which would be a new record. The iPhone 4GS has had a record breaking start as many from the iPhone 3 set are upgrading and the buzz around the Siri assistant voice recognition software has been strong.

All of this is to say that it may get more and more difficult for companies like Apple to perform in an "as expected" manner for the future. Why? Because so much hype and rumor are impacting what is really happening that the line between what is real and what is rumored has blurred beyond the point of recognition. Apple actually blamed their performance on the excessive rumor mongering. That's saying something when they are blowing the whistle on what are many of their infamous fan boys who spread the latest and great "maybe it's trues" about Apple.

Blogs and bloggers are trying to make their names through who can create then substantiate the biggest rumors. The trouble is that there are many more swing and misses than hits. Take the Boy Genius Report saying that Sprint would have an exclusive on the iPhone 5 when it was released. Oooops. Not only was their no exclusive but there was no iPhone 5. Two strikes in one swing but that may have kept people on the sidelines which is pathetic. The trouble is that people believe this junk and it influences purchasing decisions in an unhealthy way.

One can only hope that this rumor spreading for building one's own brand's sake comes to a halt as people simply stop giving these idiots their attention. The trouble is that we are at a point in the evolution of the Internet has us squarely in the middle of the Oversharing Period. People feel that they can say anything to anyone about anything it is simply true. I hope people aren't that gullible but apparently they are. Heck, I can be so why can't anyone else?

So this whole earnings "issue" with Apple appears to be more about the current information environment on the Internet which is a place where reputations, sales and just about anything else can be twisted and turned but reality and truth are not a requirement.

Honestly, folks, we need to be very careful about how much further we allow this to go. I say we because we are all to blame for giving these little sparks of rumors enough oxygen to turn into the flames of speculation, conjecture, lies and more. It's not a good place to be. It's impacting an already fragile economy to the point where the likes of Apple, who set the earnings bar so low that most Wall Streeters ignore their guidance, are missing the mark.

Let's stop feeding it, please.

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Google's Encrypted Search Meets the Myopic SEO

Posted: 19 Oct 2011 05:20 AM PDT

If there was a ever a group of people that can have blinders on when it comes to how the rest of the world views the online space it's the SEO crowd. Now the SEO world has been given a new thing to fret over and it should be fodder for hand wringing blog posts from now until whenever.

Google has announced that over the near future they will be rolling out encrypted search results which will limit the tracking of search traffic in a way that makes the numbers crowd nervous. Here is some information about why this is happening from the Google blog.

As search becomes an increasingly customized experience, we recognize the growing importance of protecting the personalized search results we deliver. As a result, we're enhancing our default search experience for signed-in users. Over the next few weeks, many of you will find yourselves redirected to https://www.google.com (note the extra "s") when you're signed in to your Google Account. This change encrypts your search queries and Google's results page.

This encryption will result in limited ability to track a logged in users' search patterns relating to keywords used for search. Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan points out the new plight of the online marketer and SEO in particular

Even though SEO traffic in general can still be tracked, those who are doing conversion analysis down to the keyword level will begin to lose out. You wouldn't be able to tell, for instance, where someone coming to your site after finding it for a search for "blue widgets" actually entered, nor the other pages they viewed.

The Google Analytics blog states:

When a signed in user visits your site from an organic Google search, all web analytics services, including Google Analytics, will continue to recognize the visit as Google "organic" search, but will no longer report the query terms that the user searched on to reach your site. Keep in mind that the change will affect only a minority of your traffic. You will continue to see aggregate query data with no change, including visits from users who aren't signed in and visits from Google "cpc".

We are still measuring all SEO traffic. You will still be able to see your conversion rates, segmentations, and more.

To help you better identify the signed in user organic search visits, we created the token "(not provided)" within Organic Search Traffic Keyword reporting. You will continue to see referrals without any change; only the queries for signed in user visits will be affected. Note that "cpc" paid search data is not affected.

I highly recommend that you read Danny Sullivan's typically exhaustive take on the impact of this move by Google. It's an interesting read (albeit in his usual lengthy fashion) because this move is being hailed as progress by privacy advocates even though the paid search part of Google's world (you know, the money part) will not be impacted. Don't think for a second that a move like this isn't intended to get some brownie points from the folks in Washington, DC when it comes to how good of a corporate citizen Google is being on its own in a world where online privacy is as political a hot button as there is to push.

What I find most interesting is that Matt Cutts, Google's SEO industry goodwill ambassador, told Sullivan that when this change is fully rolled out it will only impact a percentage of Google searches that are in the single digits. After all, you have to logged into a Google account AND you have to originate the search from Google.com. I can see those numbers making sense but apparently Sullivan was getting different feedback from the newly paranoid SEO community.

The change will only happen on Google.com, and only for those who are already signed-in at Google with a secure connection. How many people do this? Google software engineer Matt Cutts, who's been involved with the privacy changes, wouldn't give an exact figure but told me he estimated even at full roll-out, this would still be in the single-digit percentages of all Google searchers on Google.com.

Postscript: I keep seeing people question this percentage, since I posted this article, not believing it will be that low. I have double-checked with Cutts on it, and he stands by it. Whether people choose to believe his estimate is another thing, of course.

Here's where the myopic SEO comes into play. It makes sense to me that this percentage of users would be low given the parameters that this new policy is applied. Then why do many feel that this number is too low? Well, that kind of thinking comes from a common malady in the SEO space which is the mistaken line of thinking that what SEO's do and how they use the Internet even remotely mirrors the average users same patterns. The fact is, while the SEO community from the inside looking out can seem big it's not in the big picture (looking at sheer numbers). The rest of the world doesn't know about SEO and being logged into accounts and the impact it has on their search. They won't even see that a search occurring in this right environment will be encrypted. They won't have a clue.

It's this very cluelessness that makes what Google is trying to do as much of a token gesture than anything else. If they were really concerned about the privacy of searchers they would encrypt everything and limit tracking almost completely. Instead they are rolling out a change that will impact few if any. And what about mobile searches? If mobile is the wave of the search future will that be impacted by this move?

SEO's and the Internet marketing world have a ridiculously skewed view of the world at times. The ability for people in the online space to extrapolate their online behaviors to the rest of the world who have no idea that the letters SEO when used together mean anything at all is mind boggling sometimes. I think some people need to get out from behind their screens and take a walk or something to get an idea of what the vast, vast majority of the world does online. In fact, the younger the SEO the even less aware they are of the large numbers of older users that are using search that never come close to being technical or aware that they can have a Google account etc.(and this will hold true the next 30 or so years so figure it out).

In the end, this change will make a difference to the SEO's work but as with all things in this space, change is more normal than just about anything. There are always workarounds that are found and developed. Do you really think Google wants people to not do SEO? No way because that keeps companies paranoid enough about their search positions for their online presence and also keeps them paying for pay per click advertising to ensure they are "being found" when the organic side of their strategy isn't getting it done.

My suggestion to the SEO community is to get out of the office more. A huge part of the world doesn't see things like you do and we should all be grateful for that fact. Many just use search as the utility it is. There is no science or technique, just need. They come to Google to get information then they live their lives. They don't know the ins and outs of the engines, don't care and likely never will. They just want to get some information. I for one am very comfortable with that group being over 90% of the search public. It makes sense to me.

What are your thoughts?

New Social Network Pays You to Chime.In

Posted: 18 Oct 2011 02:14 PM PDT

For all of you who got up this morning thinking, "I wish there was a new social network I could join," I've got good news for you. As of this very morning, you can sign up and start contributing to Chime.in, a complete new and different kind of social media site.

Okay, I could hardly write that last sentence without laughing, but I do give owners UberMedia props for trying.

Chime.in is a cross between Twitter and Google+. Users can post a photo, video, link or up to a 2,000 character "chime." Then others can comment on the chime and voila – you're communicating with the outside world.

What makes Chime.in unusual is that you can follow interests in addition to people. There's a long list of interests to choose from including TV, movies, technology, fitness, specific sports, politics, and even chemistry.

The layout is also very nice. The big boxes and balanced graphics makes it easy to scan a full page of posts. When you click to expand a box, though, you mostly get hit with redundant information. Still, it's more visually appealing than either Twitter or Google+.

Marketing Pilgrim's Social Channel is proudly sponsored by Full Sail University, where you can earn your Masters of Science Degree in Internet Marketing in less than 2 years. Visit FullSail.edu for more information.

Seeing Green

What's really going to set Chime.in apart is monetization. According to The Huffington Post, Chime.in will pay out 50% of the advertising revenue for ads placed on profile pages. I signed up for the service and didn't see anything about this on the site so perhaps they haven't put the plan in place yet.

UberMedia CEO Bill Gross was quoted as saying,

"We're relying on the crowdsourced efforts of millions of people who are interested in driving traffic to our place. We're going to have great communities curated by really strong people and they'll be driving traffic to us. We won't have to [drive traffic] because they'll have an economic self-interest."

Now that sounds like HubPages, Squiddo and all the other pay-for-traffic sites out there and that's bad. Yes, people are more likely to remain loyal if there's a buck in it. But they're also more likely to post a volume of trash, hoping for the win.

I also found a spam chime in my first five minutes on the site.

For marketers, Chime.in is a big, open blackboard that you can use to promote your brand. That doesn't mean you should go in and start posting ads for your company. But if you happen to sell DVDs, then by all means, go start a poll about the best movies for Halloween or top DVDs for holiday giving. Over the next few weeks, I imagine the site will have considerable traffic, but once the buzz dies down, we'll see how many people keep coming back.

Has Twitter met its match? I'll chime.in with my two cents and say, I doubt it.

No Love for Luvs: The Worst Ads in America

Posted: 18 Oct 2011 01:11 PM PDT

The people have spoken and Consumerist has tallied the votes. The Worst Ad in America 2011 is Luv's Diapers "Poop, There it is." And they couldn't have made a better choice.

It can be hard to advertise diapers without going into the realm of bodily functions, but this nasty commercial takes the. . . dare I say. . . cake? It's even worse than last year's offensive ad by Huggies where they implied that babies were sexy when they wore their new line of jeans diapers. Yikes.

Other best of the worst ads includes the new AT&T commercial where the wife (whom I thought was the man's mother) goes off on her geeky husband when he tells her he signed up for a new texting plan and the AT&T spider spot. Yuck.

"Most Grating Performance By a Human" went to the lone flashmob guy who is a victim of a late text message. "Worst Abuse Of An Existing Song" goes to Swiffer's "What About Love" ad which should also win the "awkward" award. Every time I see these pieces of dirt complaining about their lack of love, I feel an ache for the actors who were forced to say these ridiculous lines.

Before you plan your next campaign, here are the winners (losers?) for "Trend That Needs To Stop Being A Trend."

With 29.4%, the top "make it stop" trend is men who can't stand their woman like in the Klondike Bar commercial where men are rewarded for listening to their wives talk for a few seconds.

A close second is the "candid camera" style commercial with 28.91% of the vote. The Ford press conference ads are particularly grating and not long ago, another company got in big trouble with mommy bloggers when they tried to pull one off.

Want to find out what else missed the mark? Get the full poll results at The Consumerist and then think long and hard about what you read before you release you green-light your next advertising campaign.